Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Interesting read. It is impossible to attribute any single weather event to global warming and the last few hurricane seasons have been relatively light. However the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane PDI is undeniable. I think the greatest hurricane-related costs won't be a significant increase in the frequency or power, but rather more damage from storm surge as sea levels continue to rise. JMO

I have a feeling the worst is yet to come with global warming. Still to early. But it should be neither ignored nor dismissed because people disagree or don't understand it.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Actually the richest man in the world is Bill Gates and he fully embraces the scientific consensus (Seattle, Microsoft, represent!)

Climate change: what Warren Buffett could learn from Bill Gates

You also missed the part where Buffet said, "I believe the odds are good that global warming is serious. There’s enough evidence that it would be foolish to say there’s a 99% chance it isn’t a problem. In this case, you have to build the ark before the rains come. If you have to make a mistake, err on the side of the planet. Build a margin of safety to take care of the only planet we have."

If that was tldr worthy I don't know how you make it through the day.

WB would be the richest but he recently gave away $27 Billion in stock, he wouldve been richer than Gates by $10 Billion.

The article I posted was from TODAY. As in he said it this morning.

here is the entire transcript.

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnb...-03 Ask WarrenBuffett complete transcript.pdf

"How has the latest rise
of extreme weather events changed the calculus faced by Ajit Jain in reinsurance?" And I know
you talk to Ajit just about every day.

BUFFETT: Yeah, it's interesting. I think the public has the impression that because there's been
so much talk about climate that events of the last ten years from an insurance standpoint in
climate have been unusual. The answer is they haven't.
I mean, we-- you read about these events, but you were reading about events 30 or 40 or 50
years ago. And we've been remarkably free of hurricanes in the United States in the last five
years. So if you were writing hurricane insurance, it’s been all profit. There have been more --
some more tornadoes than normal, but it's not had any effect in terms, so far-- the effects of
climate change if any have not affected our-- they have not affected the insurance
market.

BECKY: They haven't. So that's not something at all that you guys have changed your calculus
on --

BUFFETT: I have made no difference. I calculate the probabilities in terms of catastrophes no
differently than a few years ago.

Well I love the apocalyptic predictions on it, because-- you're right, it probably does
affect rates. And the truth is that writing U.S. hurricane insurance has been very profitable in
the last five or six years. Now the rates have come down very significantly, so, we aren't writing
much-- if anything in the U.S. Our biggest single cat risk would be earthquakes in New Zealand.

JOE: And yeah, but what do you think of the perception right now, I mean it's-- I think it's from
the mainstream media, but we are under the impression that adverse weather events are
happening every couple a days, and that it's never been like this before in history. For some
reason that's what people tell me.
And it's, you know, it's nice to be able to include them all into one thing, you know, when you
include droughts, floods, too much snow, too little snow. When you can include it all into one
big thing, it makes it look, you know, like you’re pretty smart.

BUFFETT: It hasn't been true so far, Joe.

 

[BartW]

I have a feeling the worst is yet to come with global warming. Still to early. But it should be neither ignored nor dismissed because people disagree or don't understand it.

This x1000. Opposition to acting on climate change is 100% political and 0% scientific

 

[BartW]

Why are you making fun of me? You said this is a global catastrophe if not prevented. Analogous to a comet on course to strike our planet.

How can we avoid global calamity with 7 billion people not altering their daily habits?

Bart, I think you missed my post. You didn't reply.

Sorry I didn't intend to starve you of attention I also wasn't making fun of you, just responding to your sarcasm in kind.

The analogy wasn't equating severity, it was just to show the government's role in ensuring the welfare of its citizens. I believe I've already answered your question though. Just asking people to reduce their carbon footprint obviously won't make much of a difference. The change has to come top-down IMO. Industrial operations emit far more CO2 than you or I. Implement a carbon tax then people will alter their daily habits out of necessity (e.g. more carpooling, cycling, using public transportation, etc. to cut down on gas costs).

Yes it will slow down growth in the short term, but ignoring climate change will be far more devastating economically long term. Economic objections to acting on climate change are nearsighted.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I have a feeling the worst is yet to come with global warming. Still to early. But it should be neither ignored nor dismissed because people disagree or don't understand it.

Well Warren Buffet ignores it

 

[McDad]

Bart, you said earlier it will be a global catastrophe. Now you say it will be economically devastating. In addition to creating top down solutions for industry, we also need to modify individual's patterns of behavior.

How can any solutions be implemented on all industry (considering the varied countries these industry operate) and on all 7B people?

 

[BartW]

WB would be the richest but he recently gave away $27 Billion in stock, he wouldve been richer than Gates by $10 Billion.

The article I posted was from TODAY. As in he said it this morning.

here is the entire transcript.

http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnb...-03 Ask WarrenBuffett complete transcript.pdf

That doesn't affect the validity of any of my points in the last related post. Also,

Bill Gates = scientist
Warren Buffet = businessman

And the Gates are just as big if not bigger philanthropists than Warren Buffet. Bill Gates has been the world's richest man for most of my life.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

That doesn't affect the validity of any of my points in the last related post. Also,

Bill Gates = scientist
Warren Buffet = businessman

And the Gates are just as big if not bigger philanthropists than Warren Buffet. Bill Gates has been the world's richest man for most of my life.

Gates wrote code and then hired really good lawyers. Warren Buffet makes bets on the climate and judging by his Net Worth, is very successful at it.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Well Warren Buffet ignores it

As long as the scientific community and theorists don't, everything is ok. Financiers and investors should stick to what they know. Which isn't climatic sciences.

 

[BartW]

Bart, you said earlier it will be a global catastrophe. Now you say it will be economically devastating. In addition to creating top down solutions for industry, we also need to modify individual's patterns of behavior.

How can any solutions be implemented on all industry (considering the varied countries these industry operate) and on all 7B people?

That's a question for the politicians. Global flat carbon tax could do it. Obviously we're still a ways off from a concerted global effort. It will take hard work and I think another Cuyahoga moment or two before we get serious.

Yes we'll need to modify individual patterns of behavior, but that's much more likely to happen out of convenience and necessity than out of the kindness of our hearts

 

[hog88]

That doesn't affect the validity of any of my points in the last related post. Also,

Bill Gates = scientist
Warren Buffet = businessman

And the Gates are just as big if not bigger philanthropists than Warren Buffet. Bill Gates has been the world's richest man for most of my life.

Bill Gates is a scientist?

 

[McDad]

That's a question for the politicians. Global flat carbon tax could do it. Obviously we're still a ways off from a concerted global effort. It will take hard work and I think another Cuyahoga moment or two before we get serious.

Yes we'll need to modify individual patterns of behavior, but that's much more likely to happen out of convenience and necessity than out of the kindness of our hearts

There is still time to avert a global catastrophe?
How does a global carbon tax work? What is taxed, who taxes it, and to whom do they pay?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

As long as the scientific community and theorists don't, everything is ok. Financiers and investors should stick to what they know. Which isn't climatic sciences.

Warren Buffets largest business is backing insurance companies. When Allstate needs help insuring homes on the Atlantic Ocean or on the Gulf, they turn to Buffet. Buffet then turns to his team of scientists who figure out the risk and then put a price tag on that risk.

If Warren Buffet and his team of scientist arent worried about the effects of Global Warming, then you shouldnt either

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Accumulating the most money doesn't mean you are the "end-all be-all" when it comes to a relatively new and largely misunderstood scientific field. It merely means you are fiendishly rich (which is hardly a problem, btw). Our way of life will have to change to avert over warming our planet past it's inhabitability for humans and life in general. Which is hard for most to grasp. Hence the opposition. Not too hard to figure out, even if you aren't a billionaire.

 

[McDad]

Bill Gates is a scientist?

Computer science? Political science may qualify as well. Bart will have to weigh in on it, though.

 

[hog88]

That's a question for the politicians. Global flat carbon tax could do it. Obviously we're still a ways off from a concerted global effort. It will take hard work and I think another Cuyahoga moment or two before we get serious.

Yes we'll need to modify individual patterns of behavior, but that's much more likely to happen out of convenience and necessity than out of the kindness of our hearts

And just who would collect/enforce this GLOBAL tax?
Where would the money go and who would control it?

 

[Obsessed]

Accumulating the most money doesn't mean you are the "end-all be-all" when it comes to a relatively new and largely misunderstood scientific field. It merely means you are fiendishly rich (which is hardly a problem, btw). Our way of life will have to change to avert over warming our planet past it's inhabitability for humans and life in general. Which is hard for most to grasp. Hence the opposition. Not too hard to figure out, even if you aren't a billionaire.

So you believe global warming is real,and we must do something to stop it? Correct?

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Warren Buffets largest business is backing insurance companies. When Allstate needs help insuring homes on the Atlantic Ocean or on the Gulf, they turn to Buffet. Buffet then turns to his team of scientists who figure out the risk and then put a price tag on that risk.

If Warren Buffet and his team of scientist arent worried about the effects of Global Warming, then you shouldnt either

The changes in the climate (global warming) may not affect me personally. But ignoring and summarily dismissing said change is hurtful to us all, especially over the next 50-200 years.

Or we can just sit back and watch the rich get richer while patting us on the head and telling us "don't worry, it's ok".

Global warming is still an infantile research topic, but clearly the research is necessary. No matter what one profiteer has led you to believe.

 

[Obsessed]

The changes in the climate (global warming) may not affect me personally. But ignoring and summarily dismissing said change is hurtful to us all, especially over the next 50-200 years.

Or we can just sit back and watch the rich get richer while patting us on the head and telling us "don't worry, it's ok".

Global warming is still an infantile research topic, but clearly the research is necessary. No matter what one profiteer has led you to believe.

I'm glad you are so vocal about this. I look forward to you protesting and speaking out about the legalization of pot.



AGRICULTURE: Pot growers inhale 1% of U.S. electricity, exhale GHGs of 3M cars — study (04/11/2011)

Colin Sullivan, E&E reporter
Indoor marijuana cultivation consumes enough electricity to power 2 million average-sized U.S. homes, which corresponds to about 1 percent of national power consumption, according to a study by a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Researcher Evan Mills’ study notes that cannabis production has largely shifted indoors, especially in California, where medical marijuana growers use high-intensity lights usually reserved for operating rooms that are 500 times more powerful that a standard reading lamp.

The resulting price tag is about $5 billion in annual electricity costs, said Mills, who conducted and published the research independently from the Berkeley lab. The resulting contribution to greenhouse gas emissions equals about 3 million cars on the road, he said.

Narrowing the implications even further reveals some staggering numbers. Mills said a single marijuana cigarette represents 2 pounds of CO2 emissions, an amount equal to running a 100-watt light bulb for 17 hours.

“The added electricity use [to an average home] is equivalent to running about 30 refrigerators,” Mills wrote. “Processed cannabis results in 3,000 times its weight in CO2 emissions. For off-grid production, it requires 70 gallons of diesel fuel to produce one indoor cannabis plant, or 140 gallons with smaller, less-efficient gasoline generators.”

Mills went on to compare an average pot-growing facility to the electric power intensity of a data center. In California, which is the top producing state and one of 17 states to allow medical use of marijuana, cultivation accounts for 3 percent of all electricity use and 8 percent of household use, he said.

Mills added that he completed his research with no external sponsorship, insisting that he does not mean to pass judgment on the merits of cannabis cultivation or use. He also suggested that the minimal amount of information available and the almost complete lack of regulation of the industry mean energy consumption could easily be lowered.

“If improved practices applicable to commercial agricultural greenhouses are any indication, the energy use for indoor cannabis production can be reduced dramatically,” he said. “Cost-effective efficiency improvements of 75 percent are conceivable, which would yield energy savings of about $25,000/year for a generic 10-module growing room.”

Mills, a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drew his data from open literature and interviews with horticultural equipment retailers.

By some estimates, marijuana has long been the largest cash crop in the United States — ahead of corn, soybeans and hay. The industry has been pegged at about $40 billion in value, with California, Tennessee, Kentucky, Hawaii and Washington the top five production states.

Water consumption is also an issue when it comes to environmental impact, with each marijuana plant said to need between 3 and 5 gallons of water per day to grow to fruition.

 

[BartW]

Gates wrote code and then hired really good lawyers. Warren Buffet makes bets on the climate and judging by his Net Worth, is very successful at it.

Bill Gates is actively involved in the scientific community. Warren Buffet is a brilliant businessman but not a scientist. He does not study climate or consider it in his investments. Their difference in background, field of expertise, and scope of influence are obvious. Buffet has much more to lose than to gain by acknowledging AGW. He's heavily invested in fossil fuels. Gates doesn't have a horse in the race.

As PimpVol stated, neither should be the end-all be-all authority on the subject. But due to their backgrounds and interests I'd value Gates' scientific opinion over Buffet's.They're both filthy rich and can do or say anything they want. They can throw money at anything they want and it will probably succeed. Hopefully Buffet will pony out the billion for my march madness bracket

 

[Orangeslice13]

Solar and wind farms are still profitable or they wouldn't exist. Startup costs are relatively high but in the long run it's limitless renewable cheap energy. Hydro and nuke will probably remain the largest alternative energy sources but you can't build those plants anywhere.

Your implied conspiracy theory is false, but even if it weren't, what difference does it make to the manufacturer if a PV cell or wind turbine goes to individuals vs. farms?



Cool beans. Why did you build a solar bank if it's a waste of time and money? What's your profession?

Contractor.
Baths, kitchens,ect.
I also build and install solar tables for Solar Tech.

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

So you believe global warming is real,and we must do something to stop it? Correct?

Yes, it appears to be real.

Satellite observes rapid ice shelf disintegration in Antarctic -- ScienceDaily

There is preliminary evidence that the defect in the polar vortex has been caused by global warming also. While not concretely proven, research is needed. Hard to argue that it's not, without being seen as narrow minded + short sighted.

 

[BartW]

There is still time to avert a global catastrophe?
How does a global carbon tax work? What is taxed, who taxes it, and to whom do they pay?

And just who would collect/enforce this GLOBAL tax?
Where would the money go and who would control it?

Carbon Tax

By global I don't mean collected by a global agency. Tax revenue would go to the respective governments to be used as they see fit. Hopefully it would be reinvested

 

[Orangeslice13]

And I said solar and wind should be focused on the individual.
You may have noticed I'm walking my talk.

 

[Obsessed]

I'm glad you are so vocal about this. I look forward to you protesting and speaking out about the legalization of pot.



AGRICULTURE: Pot growers inhale 1% of U.S. electricity, exhale GHGs of 3M cars — study (04/11/2011)

Colin Sullivan, E&E reporter
Indoor marijuana cultivation consumes enough electricity to power 2 million average-sized U.S. homes, which corresponds to about 1 percent of national power consumption, according to a study by a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Researcher Evan Mills’ study notes that cannabis production has largely shifted indoors, especially in California, where medical marijuana growers use high-intensity lights usually reserved for operating rooms that are 500 times more powerful that a standard reading lamp.

The resulting price tag is about $5 billion in annual electricity costs, said Mills, who conducted and published the research independently from the Berkeley lab. The resulting contribution to greenhouse gas emissions equals about 3 million cars on the road, he said.

Narrowing the implications even further reveals some staggering numbers. Mills said a single marijuana cigarette represents 2 pounds of CO2 emissions, an amount equal to running a 100-watt light bulb for 17 hours.

“The added electricity use [to an average home] is equivalent to running about 30 refrigerators,” Mills wrote. “Processed cannabis results in 3,000 times its weight in CO2 emissions. For off-grid production, it requires 70 gallons of diesel fuel to produce one indoor cannabis plant, or 140 gallons with smaller, less-efficient gasoline generators.”

Mills went on to compare an average pot-growing facility to the electric power intensity of a data center. In California, which is the top producing state and one of 17 states to allow medical use of marijuana, cultivation accounts for 3 percent of all electricity use and 8 percent of household use, he said.

Mills added that he completed his research with no external sponsorship, insisting that he does not mean to pass judgment on the merits of cannabis cultivation or use. He also suggested that the minimal amount of information available and the almost complete lack of regulation of the industry mean energy consumption could easily be lowered.

“If improved practices applicable to commercial agricultural greenhouses are any indication, the energy use for indoor cannabis production can be reduced dramatically,” he said. “Cost-effective efficiency improvements of 75 percent are conceivable, which would yield energy savings of about $25,000/year for a generic 10-module growing room.”

Mills, a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drew his data from open literature and interviews with horticultural equipment retailers.

By some estimates, marijuana has long been the largest cash crop in the United States — ahead of corn, soybeans and hay. The industry has been pegged at about $40 billion in value, with California, Tennessee, Kentucky, Hawaii and Washington the top five production states.

Water consumption is also an issue when it comes to environmental impact, with each marijuana plant said to need between 3 and 5 gallons of water per day to grow to fruition.

Bump for pimp and the like

I appreciate your support in the effort to help stop global warming